The Sun. — London, England, 1836-04-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIA MEN T. riousE OF LORIM, APntt, ROYAL ASSENT. At five o'clock the SPEAKER, attended by several MeinherS of the House of Common., attended at the Bar 4.; - , ►year the Royal Assent given to the following Billl ;--A Bill for pu 'dishing Mutiny and Desertion; a Bill for regulating his Ma jesty's Royal Marine Force; o. sill f)r the Improvement of the Town of Manchester; the Macclesfield Small Debts' Bill ; the Birmingham, and Gloucester Railway Bill; the Bristol Gas Bill; and the York Turnpike Road Bill. The Lords Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Earl of Shaftesbury. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. Petitions praying for the better observance of the Sabbath -were presented by the Bishop of Hereford, from Kingston ; by the Marquis of Bristol, from Bewelley ; by the Archbishop of Canterbury, from Bath ; by the Bishop of London, from the Wesleyan Methodists of Childrey, Montgomery, Maiden lead, Stratford, and St. Andrew ; and by Lord Bexley front the Wesleyan Methodists of Liverpool. FACTORIES. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a petition from a place in Yorkshire, in favour of the Factories Act Amendment Bill. CITY OF LONDONDERRY RAILWAY. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented a petition in favour of the City of Londonderry Railway. GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY. The Duke of BUCCLEUGH presented .a petition from Robert M‘William against the Grand Junction Railway. OBSERVANCE OP THE SABBATH. Petitions were presented for the better observance of the Sabbath by Lord DUNCANNON, the Earl of CLARE, and Lord RoDEN. HULL AND SELI3V RAILWAY. On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, the Hull and Selby Bill was read a P:econd time, and ordered to be committ e d on Monday ge'nnigtc. BlliMlNC:ifiiM AND DERBY RAILWAY. On the nie s. .zon of Lord HATHERTON, this Bill was read a third timr: and passed. AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.—GENERAL EVANS. Thq Marquis of LONDONDERRY trusted that the would bear with him for a few minutes while he made a few observations relative to a letter which had ap peared generally in the public journals, and which was stated to have been written by Lieutenant-General Evans. In that letter, as there was a particular allusion to himself, he felt called upon to bring it before the House. He should not have thought it worth noticing, but for the flat contradiction which it contained of a statement made by him in that House. The statement that he alluded to was anonymous--aspersions deserving little notice—not so, distinct allegations made in the Senate ; for instance the Marquis of Londonderry stated that the British Legion went to Vittoria in a state of intoxication. Now in that statement there was not one word of truth. On the 12th of February he came down to the House, when a letter was put into his hands from an individual who gene rally was extremely well versed in all the accounts from Spain. He had no hesitation in saying that indi vidual had repeatedly given him perfectly accurate infor mation ; and most willing would he be to produce the letter that had been given to him, and laying it on their Lord ships' table. He hoped he had sufficiently justified himself in the course he had taken—first, in showing the grounds for the statements he had made ; secondly, that all the Jour nals of the day had detailed the same facts; and thirdly, that he had private communications to the same effect. He was glad to perceive, from a letter which he had seen from General Evans to General Cordova, that the war would in all pro bability for the future be carried on in a manner more worthy of the character of a British soldier. sorry that he was not p sent to hear th at .ttttltht 01 those lion. Gentlemen who el r.,d tt'ie dill in that House. He should confine lo a short statement of the object of the niif. it Was proposed by this Bill to form a canal from the Thames to Dartford and Crayford, and thereby tr , der constant and certain a corrimuniclin 6 T -+# and the outposts by water. vriAIA, c'rOrrn the 'OtallOwliesS and sinuosity of the rreelk Wa'% no* only s e'c'ea'slonal, a'rld tlt be totally intaftlelent tOr mailu facturiag, otherr gotrer:). l llVArk,',`.;Li of the towns and neigh boarhood. 'the lily Would • also give a greater „space fer wharfage, there being at preSent b u t four Wharfs?Vdell were In the hands of three ipdivid6Vl, affording the means of a monopoly u; judicial to the public. Hear, hear,) teasure had been undertaken pur suant to rerdWi3ll3 adopted w i t h scarce l y a dissentient fsAio at t , NII pahlle meetings at Dartford nui-yeroot,airld attended, a n d t h e li ne of cttnat halk 11 4..":: laid down by en-, gineers solicited by theYrit At: 'the present time vessels could only enter the Fitii a few hours before and after high tide, mitt ,thil Conseque nce was t h at vesse l s ' were f requent l y &tamed for whole days. The connquenee of this tin certainty was, that the farmers and mill °wars com plained very much, and were all fintioes rot a remedy. An other great inconVeniente Wat t' that from the shallowness of the water, vessels which had not entered the canal were obliged to go out of the treek, and this would in a very con siderable degree be remedied by the measure which he then proposed to be read a B.2cntid time. He believed also that it was proved before the Committee, that a consi derable saving of tkpense would be effected by this Bill. The Hon. llatenet proceeded to state the circumstances con nected with the introduction of the measure, but in so low a tone as to be altogether inaudible in the gallery. 'He was .1 - nterrupted by a MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. The Usher of the Black Rod appeared to summon the at tendance of the Commons in the House of Lords, to hear the Royal Assent given to several Bills. The SPEAKER returned in a few minutes, and announced that the Royal Assent had been given by Commission to seve ral Bills—(for which see Lords' Report). SHERIFFS OF IRELAND. The Earl of WINCHILSE A moved fora return of the persons returned by the Judges to serve the office of High Sheriffs of the different counties in Ireland, together with a list of the number of those actually appointed. The House then adjourned till. Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, ArilL 22. The SPEAKER tz,ok the Chair at a quarter before 4 o'clock. DARTFORD AND CRAYFORD CANAL. Sir E. CODRINGTON presented a petition from an in dividual against this Canal Bill. The Bill, as proposed, would make a most violent invasion on the rights of property, and he therefore hoped that it would not be allowed to pass. Mr. G 0 ULBURN held in his hand a petition from Cray ford to the same effect, but as the Bill would be brought under discussion in the course of the evening, he would not make any observations on presenting this petition. Mr. MANGLES was requested to support this petition, and did so most cordially. The petition was then laid on the table. ABBOTSBY ENCLOSURE BILL. On the motion of, Mr, ROOPER, this Bill was read a se cond time. ALVES'FON ENCLOSURE BILL. On the motion of Mr. G. BERKELEY, this Bill was read a third time and passed. HODGES' DIVORCE BILL. Mr. T OOKE moved that the Order of the Day be read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill. Mr. DIVETT said that the House would recollect that when his Hon. Friend the Member for Truro, on a former occasion proposed some resolutions with reference to the pro ceedings in a Divorce Bill, he (Mr. Divett) stated that it was his intention, on the first Order of the Day being read, to move certain resolutions, the effect of which would be to put an end to the practice of examining witnesses at the Bar of the House. —( Loud cries of " Hear.") On that occasion his Hon. Friend stated that it might lead to inconvenience to hold out any thing like a threat against any particular case, but in moving these reso l u ti ons h e could state that he did so without the slightest acquaintance with the circumstances or the parties in this case. From what he had seen of the nature of these examinations he was convinced that they were calculated to produce feelings of disgust, and in no degree to effect justice. He knew that it would be said that in another place more justice was done, and he believed that judicial inves tigations were conducted there with considerable care. But he was hostile ,to the whole proceeding. He thought that they ought to be exclusively confined to the Judges in the Courts of Law. Under the present system, power was given to individuals of great influence to get Acts of Parliament to dissolve marriages, which was utterly denied to poorer classes. He was not disposed to g o the length o f s ayi ng th a t it was so in all cases ; but in the greater number parties came there with anything but clean hands. In many cases there was the grossest collusion, and the parties who were most guilty, succeeded to the great inconvenience and expense of those who were most innocent. He had the greatest confidence in the females of this country, and he believed that the greater number of divorces were caused by the misconduct of the other sex. He did not wish to detain the House by going at any length into the subject, with a view to show that the practice of di vorces was not conducive to public virtue, or the morals of the community. His object was to remove the mockery of ju dicial investigation, which under the present system went for ward, and he would feel bound to take the sense of the House on the question. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the resolutions of which he had given notice. Sir R. INGLIS did not object to the resolutions as throw ing obstacles in the way of parties seeking redress by divorce in that House, but he thought it would be legislating ex post facto, and calculated to interfere with measures already in progress. He suggested to the Hon. Member for Exeter to withdraw his motion, as it would be taken to refer to a particular case, and that he should take the sense of the House upon it as a general abstract proposition to tale effect in a future Session. Bills were brought into the other House upon the understanding that the present system would not, during this session, be interfered with. He thought it would be unfair to take the opinion of the House on a subject of which no notice had been given, and he, there fore, trusted the motion would be withdrawn. Mr. EWA RT cordially concurred in the general principle laid down by his Hon. Friend, the Member for Exeter ; but be also agreed with the Hon. Member for Oxford, that it would be better to bring in a general measure on the subject. Mr. TO 0K E expressed himself to the same effect. Mr. DIVETT then withdrew his amendment. The House then went into a Committee of the whole House, Mr. TOOKE in the Chair. Mr. D. PoLLocK, as Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, was then called in. Several witnesses having been examined, the Bill was read a second time. BRITISH ALKALI COMPANY. An HON. MEMBER having moved the further consideration of the Report of the Committee upon the British Alkali Company, Mr. HAW ES objected to the Bill. It appeared to him to confer peculiar and exclusive privileges, and as a Bill brought in by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had been re jected upon that very ground, he did not see how the House could assent to the present one. Mr. RICH ARDS contended that the Bill conferred no peculiar privileges upon the Company. The Hon. Member having referred to the details of the measure, observed that there was not the slightest scintilla of evidence to shew that any injury would result to the public from it. He complained of the prejudiced view which the Hon. Member for Lambeth bad taken of the measure. _ . Mr. HUME regretted that the time of the House should be taken up in discussions of such a nature. If there was no thing exclusive in the present Company—if there was no well founded objection to the Bill, let it be at once agreed to. H e hoped the Right HOB. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inform the House upon these points. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER regretted that his Right Hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade was not present, as he was better acquainted with the details of the measure than himself. So far, however, as he was acquainted with it, he was not aware that it gave any exclusive privileges to the Company. Mr. HUME would not oppose the Bill, in the hopes that the President of the Board of Trade would be in his place at the next stage of the Bill, so that a regular understanding might be come to, in order that the time of the House might be saved. The Bill was then read a second time. Mr. H. DARE presented several petitions in favour of the South Durham Railway. DARTFORD AND CRAtYFORD CANAL BILL. Sir W. GEARY presented a petition in favour of the Dartford and Crayford Canal Bill. The Hon. Member also moved the second reading of the Bill. Mr. HODGES had also a petition to present in favour of this Bill, from the inhabitants of Dartford. The petition was numerously and respectably signed. Sir WILLIAM GEARY regretted very much that he had not been in the H ouse w h en a conversation took place relative to this Bill. He had received a state ment from those who opposed this Bill, but he was .)-.__ DAfaFORD AND CRAYFORD CANAL. Sir W. GEARY concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time. Captain PE C HELL was very sorry to oppose another measure connected with the county of Kent, but the present was such a violation of the rights of private property, that it was impossible for him to sanction it. The Hon. Gentleman opposite had favoured them with his views on engineering ; but so far as he (Capt. P.) understood, it went to defeat the very objects for which it was intended. As a matter of speculation it would be wholly unproductive. The capital of 65,0001. could never produce more than one and a half per cent. The Prospectus contained a long list of concurring ad vantages; among others, the proprietors were to send 5,000 tons of pease to Covent Garden market. Mr. Wilks had expended a sum of 80,0001. upon mills, and he was to be taxed 6001. a-year by that Company; could the promoters of the measure expect that any person would submit to so monstrous an exaction ?--( Hear, hear.) He trusted that the House, looking at the merits of the question, and the quantity of private business that was before it, would reject this measure. They might every day see Members torn about in the passages, dragged from one Committee to the other, and he himself (Capt. Pechell) had nearly lost the skirt of his coat— ( A laugh)—therefore, to save the skirt of his coat, the time of the House, and the pockets of the public, he should certainly oppose the Bill. Captain ALS AGE R said this canal was intended, not for the benefit of the many, but for the benefit of a few individuals. It was not at all necessary or wanted, and he therefore moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. F. FRENCH did not think that because one landlord on the whole line was opposed to the project which would, if carried into effect, be of great benefit to the country, one opponent was not a good reason for throwing out the Bill. Mr. GOULBURN said there was already a navigable creek in existence, which was found sufficient for all the purposes of trade. He did not see the necessity for a ship canal, and if it was made he hoped the creek would be saved.—( Hear, hear.) He could not support the Bill. The Hon. and Gallant Officer had told the House, as a nautical man, his opinion of the great inconvenience of the Bill ; and he ( Mr. Goulburn) on behalf of the individual stated the injury to his property.—( Hear, hear.) From the statement of the parties themselves, who stated that of the whole amount of tonnage, 25,000 tons would be an nually carried to the gentleman himself, and that he would thus be contributing a considerable portion of the en tire revenue of the company, he thought the House ought not to sanction a measure which appeared to be so inju rious to the individual complaining, both in regard to what he had mentioned, and the inconvenience of having stagnant, in stead of running water, to his mills. Sir E. CODRINGTON fully concurred in the observa tions made by the Right Hon. Gentleman who bad just sat down. He instanced the injury done by the new canal to the property of an individual. It appeared that it cut right through his estate, going close to his house, and entirely de stroying his property. All he asked was to be allowed to sell on terms of a compulsory sale, and if the great advantages which it was said would be derived by 16 parishes really would be conferred by the. Bill, he thought they would be able to make the individual compensation for his losses. He thought the Bill one of the grossest injustice, and trusted the House would not sanction the second reading. Mr. HODGES s-aid that with the exception of one land holder, all the others were in favour of the Bill. He hoped therefore the House would read the Bill a second time. Sir WILLIAM GEARY said a few words in reply. Captain PE C HEL—The Hon. Member for Kent stated that there was only one landholder opposed to this bill—now on that evening two petitions had been presented against it. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Gallery was cleared for a division, when there appeared— For the second reading ll3 Against it Majority for the second reading 7l SOUTH PETHERTON ENCLOSURE BILL. On the motion of Mr. A. SANDFORD, this Bill was read'a second time. HENLEY BRIDGE BILL. On the motion of Lord ASHLEY, this Bill was read a third time, and passed. Mr. YOUNG presented a petition front the owners and occupiers of land in York, against the Leeds and Manchester Railway Bill. Also one from the parish of St. George, against the Commercial Railway Bill. Mr. FRE SHFIELD presented a petition against the Eastern‘Counties Railway Bill. On the motion of Sir W. TREL AWNE Y the Dover Har - bour Bill was read a second time. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL the House at its rising was ordered to stand adjourned till Monday. The NOBLE LORD then said that as the adjourned debate was the first in order, and as the Noble Lord opposite bad a motion on the state of agriculture, he would not have an opportunity of bringing on the Tithe Bill ; he would there fore postpone it till Monday, the 2d of May.—(Hear, hear.) He would certainly go into Committee on Thursday, before the Registry or Marriage Bills were proceeded with. On Monday next, the Noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland would move a resolution of the House on the subject of Irish tithes. In answer to a question, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated it to be the intention to proceed with the Tithe Bill before the Registry or other Bills. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. 'The Marquis of CHAND OS said, thatiF;l;e debate on the Carlow County Election was then proceeded with, the motion of which he had given notice, respecting agricultural distress, could not be brought on, and as he did not wish to interfere with the Noble Lord on Monday, he should defer his resolution till Wednesday next. TITHES. In,answer to a question from Mr. CAYLEY, Sir ROBERT PEEL said it was his intention to proceed with his measure for the voluntary commutation of tithes. He wished to give the Noble Lard opposite an opportunity of seeing the principles of his Bill and its details. In case the House should_ be of opinion, after the Bill introduced by the Noble Lord bad gone through a Committee, that there was no hope of ar riving at a satisfactory settlement of a compulsory commuta tion, then he would feel himself at perfect liberty to take the sense of the House upon his proposition, in order that no more time should be wasted,_and that they might proceed to the settlement of the great question of tithes, and he would add a clause empowering the Commissioners of voluntary commu tation to be Commissioners. Also for making inquiries upon the subject of the local customs existing in different parts of England, and that they should report thereon to the House. LONDON CORPORATION. Mr. WILLIAMS asked whetheritWas the intention of the Government to introduce any Bill on the subject of the Lon don Corporation during the present Session? There was a very strong feeling- is the City with regard to this matter. He begged to assure the Noble Lord that there was no cor poration required reform more than the Corporation of London. The SPEAKER reminded the Hon. Member that he rose to ask a question—he should therefore confine himself to that point. Mr. WILLIAMS would then ask the Noble Lord why the Report, respecting the Corporation of the City of London, was not laid on the table of the House ? Lord J. RUSSELL replied iCiarthere were some points yet under consideration. He begged to 'state that no Bill must be introduced with respect to the Corporation of the City of London until he bad ample time to consider the report. Mr. BLACKBURNE said if the Noble Lord could spare a certain legal gentleman for two or three hours a day, the la bours of the Commissioners would doubtless be soon brought to a close.—(A laugh.) TITHES (IRELAND.) Sir R. PEEL—As the Noble Lord (J. Russell) had inti mated that the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland would bring forward resolutions on the subject of Irish Tithes on Monday night, it would be a matter of general convenience to know whether the resolutions which he was to move would involve the principle of appropriation, or any question which which was likely to be contested. If they were merely matters of form, then nothing more need be said, but if the resolutions involved any contested principle, they should have some pre vious intimation of what the resolutions were.—( Hear, hear.) It was now Friday, and they might be called upon to confirm• some important principle on Monday. Lord MORPETH would perhaps be able to satisfy the Right Hon. Baronet, by reading his resolutions. They were to commute tithes to a rent charge payable by the owners of land, and to make a further provision for the better regula tion of ecclesiastical duties and revenues. Lord J. RUSSELL —The object was not the affirmance of any particular principle ; but if there was anything objec tionable in the words used, others could be framed to the Same esgct• T 1114. 14 Ni...ROBEWTN1111., did not think there, was anything olojectionable in these resolutions, HAN* P 4 ,s IN - o;ed ;113000.P:0On sol9:til Jl\e,.reconiMen4aticins /AO ‘cm!luatrc -I.lCclgl4C'?9lrifb .10 0 4ii.e4 pciwre into the 1ar.43*4;) i .e 6 . , Metropolitan Police:—( Hear , hear.) hat yominittee had prepared specific resolutions which were tinanimonsl' agreed tO and wliich contained. I)o l, i ce li for9 E ,qi c.t A,V,ggPsitOrlS ,for tr,nproyement,,of the ki . p same tlibe a 'tly.sAtt_i dr public ecOnoriiy. Ile With!: t 8 kiloW whether these suggestions were likely to be acted upon; or adopted ? Lord JO Ri's;RU,AEj i ;l:,liad h4dhe ,i - e,v6P l Mr4lMst Pl 4„ b'efOß4 144 riot ciin3.;lnbc , _ of the :erriely 05 acceding to them. On the contrary, some of them miglit, if acted upon, produce inconvenience. The public, he believed, had every reason to be satisfied with the management of the Metropolitan Police force ; but, at the same time, he thought there were some parts of the Report de serving of consideration. ' - ' Sir - R. PEEL hoped that the Noble Lord would take into consideration the position of the Chief Commissioners of Police. When he (Sir R. Peel) instituted the Police as an experiment, he limited -the salaries of the chief officers to a very low amount, expressly on account of its being an experiment. These two gentlemen, by their unabated activity and zeal, --( Hear, hear)—by their constant attention to their duties, had discharged the duties Which were intended to devolve upon three Commissioners. , They had acted with perfect harmony and good understanding, put he must say that the labor they had to perform was extremely severe. Consider ing the liberality of the view taken with respect to the salaries of the Chief Commissioners in Ireland, and the limited allow ance that was given to these officers, and the high character of the officers themselves, he felt that they bad the strongest claims on Parliament.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")-_ He was bound to bear this testimony, because when the expe riment was in its infancy, it was he who purposely limited their salaries; and also the number of the appointments. He did not ask the Noble Lord to give an opinion at present, but he hoped that the position of the Chief Commissioners would be taken into consideration. Mr. D. W. HARVEY seeing the Solicitor-General in his place, wished to know whether it was his intention to intro duce any Bill for the purpose of regulating the admission of persons seeking to become students-at• law and called to the bar. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that he had pre pared a Bill upon the subject ; but that in doing so, he doubted whether any alteration should be made without an order of the Judges. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL. Mr. HUME wished to know from the Attorney-General whether there was any probability of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill being proceeded with this Session. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that a Bill upon the subject would be introduced forthwith by the Lord Chancellor in the other House. Mr. LUSHINGTON gave notice that he would then move a resolution relative to the translation of Bishops from one See to another. CARLOW AFFAIR. Mr. Sergeant WILDE made a few observations in expla nation of what had fallen from him last night, the purport of which we could not catch. The SPEAKER having read the resolutions and amend ments, Sir F. POLLOCK said, it was not without reason when the House did him and his Hon. and Learned Friend the honour to appoint them nominees in the enquiry which took place that it prescribed certain limits, and forbade them to vote upon the question. The object of this limitation was quite intelligible. It was to give to the transaction a judicial character, and to give him and his Hon. and Learned Friend an unencumbered opportunity of discharging their duties. The decision was a wise and correct one, and if there was any doubt of its wisdom and correctness, that doubt would be removed by some expressions which had last night fallen from his Hon. and Learned Friend—when he heard his Hon. and Learned Friend speak of Mr. O'Con nell as his client, and stated that he had kept, back certain documents until he ascertained whether they would mate for or against that Gentleman.—( Loud Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had also spoken of having " laid a trap for the other side." Now to any one who might have enter tained a doubt of the propriety with which the House proceeded, these admissions fully proved that the decision which it had come to repecting him and his Learned Friend was necessary to support the dignity of the House and the charac ter of the proccedings.—( Hear, hear.) He was prevented from voting on the Committee, and he felt that the part he had taken in the transaction had debarred him from voting on the present occasion also.—( Hear.) When he was called upon to state the charges against the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin—and he gave those Hon. Members who had thus called on him full credit for she purity of their motives he ac quitted them of any intention to limit the inquiry by the tram mels of an indictment; but when called upon to make a specific charge, he objected to do so on two grounds—first, he had no information on the subject, except that which he possessed in general with other Hon.' Members; and next, it was not his intention to take upon himself the character of a public accuser, but rather to assist as much as in him lay in a difficult inquiry. He endeavoured to procure information from every person who seemed likely to be possessed of it; but in this he failed, for he could procure none whatever. Mr. Raphael refused to be seen or to be spoken with ; and though that gentleman's at torney had promised information when he heard of Mr. Ra pbael's refusal he went back, and said, that, as agent to that gentleman, he felt bound not to give the required information. As to Mr. Vigors, be had not seen that gentleman up to the period of the inquiry ; and the only information which he had to go upon was that furnished by the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bradford in moving for the Committee. Witnesses were called ; and it was proposed to him to cross-examine them; but this he declined to do. He did not, as his Hon. and Learned Friend stated, ask for Mr. O'Connell's banking-book ;he merely asked the banker what was the state of Mr. O'Connell's account with him at that moment. Several Members were reluctant to have any inquiries made into a gentleman's private accounts. He con curred entirely in the delicacy and justness of such a senti ment, and nothing but a sense of public duty could induce him to put the question. He confined himself, however, to the question, and did not ask to see the banking-book. His object in putting the question was, that the Committee might see how the money which had been advanced had been applied, and to know whether Mr. O'Connell had overdrawn.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. O'Connell himself gave in the banking-book, which he said any one was at liberty to see. It was handed to him ( Sir F. Pollock) to be seen by him and his agent, but he did not show it to the agent. He merely looked himself to ascertain whether Mr. O'Connell had overdrawn. As Mr. O'Connell had shown the payment of the whole money, with the discount, it did not become him (Sir F. Pollock) to fol low up that portion of the inquiry, and fasten on a minor point of the case.—( Hear, hear, hear.) After examining a variety of witnesses, his Hon. and Learned Friend at last put Mr. O'Connell in the chair, for the purpose of being examined ; but he ( Sir F. Pollock) declined to put a single question to that gentleman. It might be that he had not given full satisfaction by abstaining from doing so, but when it was admitted that a trap had been laid for him, ho confessed he did not regret the course which he had pursued on the occasion. —(Cheers.) Since the inquiry, he (Sir F. I Pollock) had learned that there was a case to be made on the subject of the baronetcy, and that if Mr. O'Connell had been examined, it would have come out. He regretted that this had not been used to bait the " trap." With regard to Mr. O'Connell, he admitted in the fullest extent that that Gentle man was completely relieved from any charge of pecuniary cor ruption—that he had paid over all the moneys which he had received.—( Hear, hear.) He admitted this in the fullest ex tent, but to show that there was a corrupt bargain, he would refer to the terms of the agreement, which were so often quo ted, to show that there was a specific agreement, and an act of traffic for the sale and purchase of a seat in that House—a traffic solemnly and deliberately entered into, and absolutely fulfilled—not surely in compliance with the regulations of the House, but in positive contravention of its enactments. This part of the contract, and the terms in which it was expressed, could be best understood from the following letter, which the Member for Dublin, in the fulness of his zeal for purity of election, and his abhorrence of anything like corruption, had deliberately addressed to Mr. Raphael. [The Hon. and Learned Gentleman theniread Mr. O'Connell's letter to Mr. It aphael. ) Now, he would put it to the deliberate judgment, to the common candour, and the integrity of the House, if this stipu lation, this engagement, was not as deliberate, as solid, and as profligate an act of traffic for corrupt purposes, to secure a seat in Parliament for another, as ever was unfolded to the House from the foul pages of boroughmongering registry ? ( Loud cheers.) Was there any honest man in that House— any constitutional lawyer—who would have the face to say that it was not a vile traffic and an outrageous infringement on the prerogatives, on the honour, and the rights of Parlia ment ?—( Cheers.) It was a gross breach of the privileges of the House, he would again repeat ; arid he defied any abettor of the Hon. Member to stand up and attempt to prove the contrary.—( Cheers.) Well, then, as to the resolutions of the committee, he would say one word on that head. He could well understand that the Members of the Committee, having submitted to them a specific question, and not wishing to travel beyond the precise line of what they conceived their duty, should discard the other constitutional topics involved in the inquiry submitted to them, and given a report so limited in its nature.—( Cheers.) As they thought that there was no direct evidence of the proof of personal corruption having been established against Mr. O'Connell, they very probably did not conceive it their duty to ravel into extraneous topics, such as the constitutional character of the transaction. — (Continued cheering.) But when the case was brought in all its bearings before Parliament—when it was used as the sub ject of a deep and solemn investigation—then the affair as sumed a new complexion—( Hear, hear)— and the House was bound to decide on the case as a whole. As proof of the opinion that every Hon. Member of that House should enter tain of the present proposal few purchasing a seat, and the (Cheers)—and of the just indignation that sh ou ld b e enter tainedconsent to sell it (for was it n o t bu ying and selling? — by every man who did not think px:rity of election in these reforming times a fraud and a mocke;v—(Cheers an d laught er )—he would quote a somewhat p a s ra i i cl case—one that he had only seen that day, and one that occurres.l4 in , t , h id e old days of profligate Toryism — (Laughter) — an d h e v/0- -- quote it t o show how even Tories could r e p e l w i t h sco rn a proposal of corrupt vending of a scat, and to show, too, that the freedom of election, the rights of the electors and the elected, were not then so much the subject of contemptuous slight. The document he referred to was to be found in page 566 of the journals of the House, referring to a transaction that took place in Oxford, on the 15th of May, the mayor and cot 1766. As would be seen, wed. corruptly • • N, LONDON, SATUADAY, APRIL 23, 136. oflired to sell the represerOtton, And the patties referred to hi dizinantly rejected the profligate proposition . , " Oxford, May 12, lifift debts and circumstances of the city of Oxford , ovinf been ialai6etepre aFoWil of the Co held by order of weMayor,ll lotiday, the TRH of Mareff 'NW and iti Ten ap. • • pearing thae the city were indebted to their bond de iterj in the sum of 5,6701. exclusive of the annuities, benefactions, and charities which arc paid by the city, and annually amount o ,ibere thantheiiet rifecitne of . their estates ; and . as some ti.crLtljdkßooeni tfa4e: Ohon't Consent of titre corrnok of this citp lac' { *fin ill&iiSelVO to ekpo'S'e the city to a person iri Loudon by Offering to clei;t irf:d Or. ng to be rer•Csen for,titis city in Parliathent, at the ne*l gonlirsti election, ! wi ftdyance four thousand pounds. • ;his dnubt the Mazni aMI Council th'ought exor bitant demand for the represetadtliAi 4'l their city, and . .they therefore went on to say, "The Mayor and totindji there fore, unanimously came to a resolution, in order to prevent all opposition, animosity, and confusion, and to extricate them selves out of their present difficulties, to apply to you and Sir Thomas Stapleton (in the first instance) for your imist once to disciharge the bond debts due from the city, by which means they will be enabled to do justice to their creditors, and, as they apprehend, preserve peace and unanimity in the city. "—(Cheers.) " But if it should not be agreeable to Sir Thomas to advance the money, the whole Council arc determined to apply to some other persons in the comity to do it, and if possible by that means to keep them , selves from being sold to foreigners."—(Lond Cheers and laughter.) " We, therefore, whose names are heretinder written, have by order of the council taken the liberty of troubling you with the above, and also with the enclosed state of the city debts and income, and as we are directed by the council to report your answer to them, so we must beg leave to trouble you to send your answer to the mayor as soon as it is agreeable to you, that he may call a council, and lay the same before them." This letter was signed by Philip Ward, Mayor, John Treacher, Thomas Munday, Thomas Wise, John Nicholls, John Phillips, Isaac Lawrence, Richard Taw ney, Anthony Weston, and also by Thomas Robinson and John Brown, bailiffs. In the postscript the writers said— " P. S. The Corporation think themselves very much obliged to you for your late generous benefaction to them, and are sorry their necessities oblige them to trouble you with this letter.—To the Hon. Robert Lee." This application was in writing, and was accompanied by a document of the sums for which the Corporation stood indebted, and certainly the do cument was more specific than that given in with respect to the county of Carlow. The reply of the Hon. Members to whom this application was made was such as did honour to the writers, and would do honour to any Member of Parliament, reformed or unreformed. The reply was dated 10th of July, 1766, as follows : " Mr. Mayor and Gentlemen—We think it incumbent on us to return you thanks for the preference you are generously pleased to give us of purchasing your Corporation.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But as we never intend to sell you, so we cannot afford the purchase. —( Cheers.) As it has been always our determined resolution that, if we could not serve our country, we would not be concerned in betraying it— ( Hear, hear.) While you remained independent we thought it a peculiar honour to represent you, and had you continued in that state, we should have been heartily and sincerely at your service. " ROBERT LEE. " THOMAS STAPLETON." It was unnecessary for him to detain the House by going through the journal with a detail of the result. Those Hon. Members who chose to inform themselves further in the matter would find, at pages 583 and 597 of the journals of that year, that the whole of the parties who signed the first letter he had read were ordered to attend the House on the Friday following, and were then committed to Newgate, as being guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, and some days afterwards, on presenting a petition expressing their sorrow for the offence, were brought up and discharged. When in those unreforming and Tory times gentlemen of England could be found to repudiate a foul bargain, that was a violation of the spirit and letter of the constitutional code of Great Britain—when they said that they would not purchase a constituency because they would not sell them— could it now, in these periods of our purgated legislation—in this reign of a Whig Reforming Ministry, to whom trafficking for a seat in Parliament was an abomination—could it, he would say, be defended in these days ; and, oh shame I even by a Minister of the Crown, himself the vaunted enemy of election corruption and political jobbing—the Noble Lord, ay, a Russell—that for a stranger to transfer the representation of a whole county-to another stringer for a sum of money, was no political offence ?—(Cheers.) He held another document, which would clearly establish the fact that the Hon. Gentle man (Mr. O'Connell) had solely in view to subjugate the whole county to his own purpose; for one of the purposes to which the money, after defraying the expenses of the election, was to be to protect voters from the consequence of annoyance from their landlords—that was, to create a fund for the poor tenantry, out of which they might draw their rent and other charges to be made upon them, so as to enable them to set their landlords at defiance.—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend ( Sergeant Wilde) said that if freedom of election was not to be preserved, he would vote for the ballot. Was his Hon. Friend really serious ? Did he think freedom of election con sisted in debauching the constituency of a country—in turning tenant against landlord—in dissevering the common relations that bound men together in life 2—( Hear, hear.) He ( Sir F. Pollock) was no advocate for the ballot, but he would really prefer it to the system of iniquitous proceedings 133 which elections now-a-days, especially elections on the libe ral aide, were attempted to bo oorrica.—( Loud cheers.) His Honourable Friend must have forgotten his usual good sense, when he could, even by implication, have advocated such a system as this, one that was fraught with so much danger to the freedom of election and the Constitution itself. Some years ago there used occasionally appear such an adver tisement as this—" Wanted a seat in a certain Assembly, for which the advertiser would advance 1,0001." The case was a parallel one to the present. Mr. Raphael was the rich man who advertised in the present case. He paid his money and got his seat, which, however, he did not long enjoy. What, he would ask, did Mr. Raphael represent its that House but his own 2,0001. ? He did not represent the county of Carlow, of which he had no knowledge, and with which he was unac quainted. For what virtue was Mr. Raphael recommended to the county ? For no other than his money. There was a fact connected with the whole subject to which he would revert, that was the offer of the Baronetcy. It was amusing to hear the tone of exultation in which this question of the Baronetcy was referred to, when the Noble Lord with an air of presump tuous self-complacency, referred to this subject as a proof that, because forsooth, Mr. Raphael did not obtain the Baronetcy, the Government could not be said to be the slaves of Mr. O'Connell, as he said they were represented to be. But he would join issue with the Noble Lord, and as confidently ask him—did Mr. O'Connell ask for the Baronetcy, and was he refused ? Did he apply ; and, if he did, was he refused ? ( Hear, hear.) He (Sir F. Pollock) was anxious to give Mr. O'Connell the full benefit of the acquittal of the Committee so far as it went. But when it was said that a new question as to an infraction of the privileges and rules of the House were not to be mixed up before the House with the general question, and that Mr. O'Connell's personal guilt or in. nocence was the sole consideration, then he should utterly dissent from that proposition.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The question was now beyond the range of the Committee, and it behoved the House to adopt some strong measure upon it. No matter what might have been the feelings of the Committee, circumscribed within the range of their real or imaginary duty, the House should look further, and see whether the law and the privileges of Parliament were not violated. Such im plicit faith should not be placed in the resolutions of a single Committee as to deter any Member of that House from canvass ing afterwards either the justice of the decision or examining the questions connected with the inquiry.—( Hear, hear.) For his part having been an unwilling Member of the Committee, the mere nominee of the House, without the power—or even if he had the power or intention—of voting, he was from the outset resolved to act with the utmost caution. He declined to become a prosecutor, or to sum up evidence. But he was not, nevertheless, an inattentive observer of the course of the investigation, and of the facts directly and collaterally as sociated with it; and from what he knew about it, he had not the remotest hesitation in declaring his full conviction that in the resolution of the Committee the entire facts of the case were not embraced ; that though Mr. O'Con nell might be guiltless of private corruption, yet the Commit. tee could not be offended if the House went further, and exa mined how far his act was, in a constitutional point of view, justifiable—( Hear, hear)—and if one party took a lenient and almost a justifying view of Mr. O'Connell's conduct, he or they could not be offended if others examined it more scrupu lously and rigidly. Giving Mr. O'Connell all the advantage of his acquittal by the Committee, so far as that acquittal went, he should protest against the doctrine of the Noble Lord oppo site.—( Loud cheers. ) Mr. WARD said notwithstanding the Learned Gentleman's boast of declining to become a public prosecutor, he still in dustriously drew every unfavourable inference from the facts laid before the Committee.—( Hear, hear.) He said that the bills passed by Mr. O'Connell were accommodation bills ; but by referring to the evidence of Mr. Vigors it would be found that he considered them as good as cash, and that every shilling of the money was forthcoming when he wanted it. As for the letter, which the Hon. and Learned Member said was a breach of privilege, that was a matter for the Committee to consider, and, after the evidence, which had been carefully gone into the Committee decided that it was not a breach of privilege.—(" No.") He would thank Hon, Gentlemen who cried " No," to point him out any part of the report which de nounced that letter as a breach of privilege. The Committee were of opinion, under all the circumstances, that it was not liable to any such censure. The Hon. Member then went on at some length to defend the conduct of the Committee ; and he maintained that, after so many gentlemen of different parties and opposing sentiments had undertaken the invidious and unpleasant duty of investigating into these transactions, their report ought to be considered final. If the House did not consider the resolution of such a Committee final he did not see how the House could expect any Gentleman to sit on a Committee in future. Mr. LAW said, as far as the breach of privilege was con cerned that was proved by the very form of the report. ISo far as the pecuniary charge against the Hon. and Learned Member was concerned, no man was more ready to exonerate the Hon. and Learned Member from it than he was; but •still it remained a question in this case whether, the want of sur plus on this occasion relieved the parties from the guilt of im mediato appropriation. The setting apart a fund for the pur ' Pof i O demnifyin,g those electors wh o vote d for Mr. Ra phael" aga il,zst. any demands which might be made upon them for arrears of .rent appeared to him to be as comp l ete a viola tion of the laws of election and of the privil eges o f P ar li a ment . b s l imagined. He did not b e li eve t h a t the as could possibly House would consent, to affirm the repo r t o f t h e C omm ittee, bargain that h a d b een es t a blished. in the face of the corrnp He did not consider that in refdsing to do so there was any ' danger of inculpatiry , those Hon. Members who had been en- ,} gaged in the intermediate e' inquiry. He wished to speak with respect of the latio'urs of those Ilon. Members, but he consi dered he should fa shoji in his , public duty if he did not soy that he thought their finding hifolritai and inconclusive.— ".0)1, oh," from the apposition.) The House could nof afflYrn the,l'esolutions, of the Noble Lord without acting contrary to flit!' idr,l 'f Patitiament. Sir B. VERE was understedd ri`g a Member of the , Committee of Inquiry, that the Comniltit4 l haid' so' strongly the great importance of any opinion they exprc'..' , T given enrulmoasly, that it had been thought better, for de sake of suOt unanimity, minor points should be conceded, so long its they did not intolte any dereliction of principle. He did then, iis he did now, entirely exonerate the Hon. and Learned Meurer for from zany charge of pecuniary cerruption, or even of by cling litho money for Iris advantage. HA Considered the question one of most vital importance. He should halvd )I en disposed to vote for the arrienthient of the Noble Lord on tire side ; but •on reflection, rind after hearing what the Noble Lord silid on- the subject, he felt that ' he could not do so consistently.—(fiedri ]Near. ) The Com mittee, it wo admitted on all hands, had pass'A i strong cen sure on the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, tott the Noble Lord said it was no matter.—( Hear, hear.) He W 2 44 surprised at the manner,in which a subject so great and im portant as this one was allowed to be had .been treated by the Noble Lord; and that the Noble Lord should have treated it as n trivial and unimportant thing was what he could not corn prehend,--(Hear, hear.) Mr. BANNERMAN was glad to perceive that the charac ter of thn ticia: and Learned Member for Dublin was exone • rated from did charge of personal corruption by gentlemen of all parties ; but lie WO sotry to see that many Hon. Members desired to implicate him in 8 charge of breach of Parliamen tary law. When the Committee met it was proposed that the specific charge made against tile Hon. and Learned Member should be entered into. But the 140. and Learned Gentle man who conducted the case on the other sia. that he had had no communication with Mr. Raphael, and that ho was not in structed to proceed with them. The Committee seemed Daz zled, but he (Mr. Bannerman) suggested that, as the sessional order was read, as the foundation of the Hon. Member for Bradford's allegation, it should be also made the basis of the proceedings of the Committee. The suggestion was adopted, and the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was tried on the charge of breach of privilege. 'On that trial the Committee had reported, and their report was before the House. If they had considered the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin guilty of a breach of privilege, they would not have hesitated to state it to the House, inasmuch as the question was not one of party, but of right and justice.—( Hear.) Sir J. Y. BULLER said that, as a member of the Com mittee, he had gone to the trial, he had heard the evidence, and he fully concurred in the decision 'which had been come to. He entirely acquitted the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin of everything like pecuniary corruption, and he be lieved a majority of the House did the same. With respect to the question before the House, be felt bound to state that it was not his intention to rote on it. Ile believed that the same resolution was entertained by other Hon. Members who were on the Committee. Sir E. WILMOT considered that the Committee was on its trial in some measure, and that he, as one of it, was calked on to defend himself. It was well known that when he was placed on the Committee his feelings were hostile to Mr. O'Connell's political course, and he had made up his mind that that Hon. and Learned Gentleman would extricate him-. self from the accusation against him with great difficulty. He ( Sir E. Wilmot) had, however, on hearing the evidence, come to the conclusion that there was nothing to convict the Hon. and Learned Member of a legal or parliamentary crime. Mr. D. W. HARVEY could not reconcile the claim to dis interested forbearance set up by the Hon. and Learned Mem ber the late Attorney-General in regard to his mode of con ducting this case against the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. What was the gist of his charges? They inculpated kimself as well as the Committee. He said that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was not examined on the subject of the Baronetcy. The Hon. and Learned Member was ready to be examined. Why did not the late Attorney-General not examine him ? Surely it was no part of the duty of the Hon. and Learned Sergeant who conducted the case on the opposite side to do so. The Hon. Member then read the Sessional Order of the House, for the purpose of showing that it was upon the breach of privilege that the Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Dublin was tried by the Committee. He could not, he confessed, understand the disinterested generosity of Hon. Members opposite, who affirmed that the Hon. and Learned Member had violated the Sessional Order and broken the Act of Parliament, yet would not press for the penalty of 1,0001. attached to the offence, or instruct his Majesty's Attorney-Ge neral to prosecute. Perhaps there was something sympathetic of Newgate in their minds. The case stood thus. Looking at the letter of Mr. O'Connell to Raphael and Pearson, it ap peared to him (Mr. Harvey) that if Raphael had been re turned for the county of Carlow without opposition a great proportion of the 2,000/. in question would have been paid to the credit of the Carlow Liberal Clnb. That was his opinion. Hon. Members on the other side of the House might say the Club was unconstitutional and the contract corrupt. In that case what use was there of a Committee at all ? He (Mr. Harvey) thought otherwise. He thought that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had a right to regret the re stricted terms of the resolution. He saw in the whole trans action only that which entitled the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin to praise rather than censure—particularly to the praise of his own country. It was an effort to save the county of Carlow from the domination of an oligarchy, such as that which the House were so familiar with in the boroughs of Queenborough and Hertford in England. What was the course which the Hon. Member for Bradford called upon the House to pursue ? He called on it to pronounce judgment, a highly penal sentence, and yet up to that moment he (Mr. Harvey) did not even know the terms of the indictment. The House was asked by the Hon. Member for Bradford to affirm two charges—first, that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had violated a sessional order ; the second, that he had infringed the Act of Parliament. He wished to know in what this alleged violation consisted ? Was it in the bare fact of his having written a letter, or was it in the expenditure of the money ? In adopting either view they would question the de cision of the Committee, already adopted by the House. No determination they could now arrive at, pronounced by 200 individuals at each side, could possibly equal, in -calmness and propriety, the sober decision already come to by their Com mittee. They were, in point of fact, trying the Hon. Mem ber a second time. Mr. C. W. WYNN had heard with surprise that the Com mittee was on its trial, and that the House was precluded from exercising its judgment on the evidence that Committee had brought up. He was surprised to hear the assertion that it had been intended to commit the whole case to that Com mittee as to a jury, whose opinion was to be conclusive, and who were to apply the law of the case to the facts and pro nounce authoritatively thereupon. He most distinctly denied that the House was precluded by the terms of the appointment of that Committee from examining into the facts adduced in evidence before it; and nothing was more common than that the House should disagree with the Report of their Com mittees, even where they were unanimous, and appointed for the purpose of arriving at a final determination. The most important part of the question seemed to him to arise out of that part of the agreement that Mr. Raphael should not pay more than his legal expenses, and the House ought to determine one way or other in respect to the considerations involved in that understanding. He thought that the Oxford case, alluded to by the Hon. and Learned Member for Huntingdon ( Sir F. Pollock), was very much in point, and precisely similar to the Carlow one touching this portion of the transaction. It would scarcely, he thought, be contended that Mr. Raphael was legally under any engagement to pay the debts of the un seated Member—( Hear)—or that it was a fair legal arrange- ment to appropriate any portion of his contingent 1,0001. to pay the expenses of the defence against the previous petition. —( Hear.) That was precisely the point of the Oxford case, and it was clear that to call on any Member to pay a certain sum on his nomination must be considered a violation' of the rules of the House. If the House wished to prevent such practices in future, they must now record their decision, that the present was a violation of their rules.—( Loud cries of " Question," " Divide.") Mr. GROTE said that it was very remarkable that while every one on the opposite side of the House who spoke on the subject of the Hon. Member for Bradford's motion had ex pressed their opinion that a gross breach of privilege had been committed, they had also expressed their willingness to vote for the previous question, and so get rid of the question alto "ether.—(No, no.) The motion of the Hon. Member for Bradford showed an anxious disposition to abolish the good effect of the unanimous Report of the Committee. That would look very bad before the public, and singularly con trasted with his silence on the subjects of one or two Commit tees which were before the House last Session, namely, York and Yarmoutli.—( Cheers.) If that House were to pronounce a censure upon Mr. O'Connell now, after the acquittal by the Committee, that censure would only tend to raise him still higher in public opinion. He would be looked upon as a man treated with injustice and oppression. Sir J. GRAHAM had no predilection in favour of the re solutions of the Hon. Member for Bradford, but he had in favour of the previous question, for which he was prepared to vote. When this subject was originally brought before the House, he had a strong opinion that there was evidence which went far to bear out a charge of corruption against the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. There was no doubt upon his mind that this charge of personal corruption was the whole gist of the case submitted to the Committee.—(Cheers.) Since the Committee had made their Report he had carefully read the whole of the evidence, and the result was that be had come to three conclusions—First, that Mr. O'Connell throughout acted as an agent, and not as a principal ; second, that his being employed at all was not of his seeking ; and thirdly, that in no part of the transaction did Mr. O'Connell ever contemplate any benefit to himself, nor was it possible that he could derive any.—( Cheers.) The Committee had, therefore, most properly pronounced a decided and unequivocal acquittal of Mr. O'Connell. Here, perhaps, the matter ought to have rested ; but the Honourable Member for Brad ford would revive , the 49th Geo. 111. Now this Act, he ( Sir J. Graham) looked upon as one of very difficult con struction ; and he believed that no Court of law had ever yet pronounced any judgment upon it. For himself, he confessed that he was not very learned on such subjects ; indeed, so little so, that he could not say that he had never himself vio lated this very Act. He should, therefore, be sorry to ex press an opinion how far it had or had not been violated by others.—( Cheers.) Mr. O'Connell had been put upon his trial before a tribunal worthy of the confidence of the House and the country ; and if it had been shown, as it clearly was, that he had hot been guilty of the major offence, he thought it was going rather too far to say that he was to be tried again for the minor offence.—( Cheering.) It might be asked why after this was he prepared to vote for the resolutions of the ) ----- -------- -. 1 ebet Is., I vo. ' jell , Honourable Member for Bradford.—( His reason was this. The previous question w as ,_ mod , et well known and • understood by Parliamentdid 4 not w ish t ° passing off any question which the Patio the Noble entertain. For this he was prepared to vote; . dlow biln th' Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) would not _ . . 1, , st on at opportunity of doing so.— leave so.—( Cheers.) He wolulaele: insist ti specific judgment of the House, and woult e ...... ,,, hee rs.) matter to rest upon the decision of the Committe . t e t_`: body ina, an d he t 'Sir the Nuble Lord would not be satisfied withou 1 ' s Ministeraia a certain resolutions for the adoption of the House,: compe lled J. Graham, being' thus pressed into a corner, House, those resit' to' look into the evidence to enable him to judge d• ,b e did, laic , * of the Noble Lord.—( Cheers.) Taking!°, pe little this view 64 ti•l i i g . subject, he confessed that it was witu i !ht tsef ere ' surprise that he tataird the Noble Lord opposite the n . 11 lice t h e and the Hon. Alemter for London for that night, Pr° Ho e n u oura tyle question before the House it trumpery one. transaction must be a pure one tlecause it was thepebl' , , of ‘N nolo bis (Sir J. Graham's) answer to the was, that but pr . cate the transactions were never intended to and Learned Sergeant ( Sargeant Wilde) badbsetate.det.hatlitalivve there , —(Cheers)—and the only• wonder was the betrayal v o e re which made them public.—(Cheers.) It lv: 15 irrupt ion lo g was the corruption? He answered that the n" , o f Car the sale of a county.--( Cheers. ) Was not the couatcat span . hawked about for sale as a damaged article, h 0 t nv , if i n e 0 lation, s7ith which nobody in Ireland would have a !. ° No do ? Mr. Latouche refused it—Alr. Wallace refused " t 0 ,, to s V I a one who knew it t;tould bid for it, until at last it wa i, after a sort of Dutch auction here in Engltind—an° rnaa down to great deal of mock bidding, sold and knocked . hless person, be public,,a, of 1 who was described by the vendors as a most fait at regretting with whom a man never yet had 'a bargain without imeina t i le it, in short, as the " most incomprehensible 11 he should have gladly concurred in the motion for ti .ec r se: dcd vagabonds."—( Ch eers a nd laughter.) As he bad aliree3_3_,Ylasiaouti; question, rather than have gone again into this sub,J_ co,,,,it as he considered it ought to have been finally by t i t n , , epen dene tee. But the Hon. Member for Bradford was au .a q st i e a Member, and had a perfect right to bring forward yi e y. b u er ' ba a he thought proper. He was sure that Hon. 3 1 i n , si d e of never consulted any persons on his ( Sir J. Graham 11 4 . 05 t car iLe House.—( Ministerial cheers and laughter.) L i": su bject tainly he ( Sir J. Graham) had heard nothing en t" „ ta d the until after the Hon. Member had given his notice.,, have Hon. Member for Bradford consulted birth cidedly advised him against the coursg he bad ,1, 3 0 - 0 , 1 be v oting The Member for London observed, that obtainable in 1111 sine periculo et sine timore. This might be nt state it Utopian state of society, but he feared in the Prese •d last vilde) s aid he was unattainable. The Learned Sergeant ( \\'- , to t night that he would have vote by ballot in preferen % e a as present system, unless accompanied by protection, P4,lernee that afforded by the Carlow Club. Would the supp ort Gen. the he shen!° "., t5 . opposite support that proposition ? Would they c ain ° Learned Sergeant's view, that unless Liberal candidat ._ fa , forward and contributed large sums of money to a ssist _l s l' t ag warding the objects of the Clubs in protecting fro ntY o o ter ' th e would support rote by ballot ?—( Cries of " No, no, .. t he and th e . b `' u dee i : Ministerial benches.) For his part, he should prefer e.Y..: 00 ballot, without this arrangement, to open voting with t li dect question now wat, whether e Carlow Club, of all other parties concerned, was to be justified bY '._f e rre° sion of that House. The Member for Londones'!_et to to circumstances which occurred .last session, with r c P r ` mne , other Committees. For his part, he lamented *o r _ ' art of stances, because he saw in them a disposition on tri% c tieu the House to act with more than usual soveritY 5 ota ble eases. This was manifest in their sending down 4 ,1 1 , P a r, he a " gentleman in custody of a gaoler to Norwich.- --( .aer Pe from the Opposition.) He disapproved of sucb notices' then, and he would not concur in punishing rahlu r a i g heic k... allowing wholesale trading in bribery to go WV"' t (Cheers.) 50 10' 4. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUP' n e n e i t s a k e if there was in this cp.se, as the Right Hon. should '-o wholesale corruption and breach of privilege, why s the g• - wish to give the inquiry into such important matter t be Itb by, by voting for the previous question.—(Cheers fr et % th ey e nisterial benches.) How was it possible to recenell , ce cil. things ? This fallacy ran through the whole of . s ' t r ev ioa s What was the inference to be drawn from voting the or r ly thie , question ? What would such a vote convey ? 1 too vet' that the House of Commons was perfectly ready not oluy v 01 0 Y 0 look this case of alleged corruption, but even t 0 Pl a CO no opinion upon it, or upon the conduct ° I. n o P; raittee appointed by themselves, whose condo alt 01e son doubted, but yet whose decision was to a' , 017, and purposes called into question by the res oluti° ll- ce f (e a ,, Member for Bradford. It was said that the ComioittiorDer not here upon their trial. But did not the Meinheratoth4 vonshire, did not the Member for Warwickshire , di d n tie _ a e 4 members of the Committe declare that they considet h et 11 ' selves placed upon their trial by the motion of the coned 0.. t Bradford ? Whatever might be the view of a roaP riti opi rliP House in affirming the resolutions would it not be th e f Ce is t i of the people of England to-morrow that the H _ °us e a le, l c mans had exposed themselves to a charge ohscar to ', the Committee to a charge of partiality, by sel t „ ls il t e r eso d previous question ? They were not called upon lq bet. lutions of his Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) to g t e t bc e it the finding of the Committee. It was insinuated ! ha g the s da i ject was to entrap the House into an approval 01 $ 08 Ito cumstances connected with the Carlow election..l4 pint congratulate the Member for Bradford on the Cu tt hte r.) he of the course pursued by him.—(Cheers and bu" port .„. was a singular proof of his consistency, and of the s t r ot ise' f - or received from his friends on the other side of the, „ o ber go (Hear, hear.) When they were told that the the, as : re Bradford acted upon his own responsibility, a tr a ulie t ro independent Member of Parliament, he must u s Z in t, f ,,, they should a second time have heard of this su'r t c he v i ; did not refer to an individual who gave his suPP° rt „ te Get : vernment ?--( Cheers from the Opposition.) 13 %hat t A .",,,0 men opposite might cheer, but this he would sali_ ii ; se at ",; 1 ,1 was no occasion on which he did not express hir t he : a that individual when he thought him wrong ; uti,.) o gaw t o never hesitate to defend him, or any other individtu and 0:0 charge which he believed was originally get 11 P' o°lo brought forward a second time, for no other reasi t t ass!„, being a strenuous supporter of the Governmen t. 1 c harraid effect, now brought forward again as a persena liare e .g t sO ,, (" No," from the Opposition.) The Right H oti • t he l u i r not state correctly what fell from his Hon. Friend , at be - c1 ber for London. What his Hon. Friend said was °l i b e l °l rs proved of the conduct of clubs, not as aiding in br i n e O t e e rp corruption, but in the justifiable sense of prate The ild against oppression. —(1 - fear, from Mr. Law.) __ A „ 5 a b,,r e n a- Member for Bradford brozight the question forwaru 'die '',7o ( of privilege, and in that si:ape it was referred I fet ob e 'ar mitten. The tendency of tho motion of the Ho 0. 0 0 Bradford was to bring the question again into discuss: coa ti ao fore the House, and to take "won themselves theoo,se,,c, which they had delegated to the Committee. T,_ ll ; ° tr ial ,'",,,a• trusted, would not be so unjust ila to put upon I t on . et o cond time a party who bad been aLready tried au atr i W frbe — per ( f C ee h t e ly er a s a . t ) isfie H d e w b it e h lie t a h -e e d fia th d e ing Ho o as f . e ol a c nd co th tn e ol e i Oe ee c ' ol i : House ought to be cautious how they ap,nointed their dee ~,,e to a , s itY , mittees, but, once appointed, and once ham"' cc ).- n eee' sion, that decision, except in cases of overwOming 0 pi , ought to be conclusive.—( Hear, hear.) „ e nd , 5 of Sir R. PEEL rose amidst cries of " Question, pith ale , I iht , vide," from the Ministerial benches, and cheers , i a b '',4 upon sei ti a t g h e myself question fro nmo the e b before House. . " Hear," from the Opposition.—l certainly & Wit to air could have felt it consistent with my public duty tO O % 50 01 5 if) T l h m er i e gh a t re h , alivoewcie.';:cer; the :tile' which a Member cannot absent himself. I cons' ti ding c o' course here to be to strike a balance between c onte o this° fee t culties. It is my wish and my intention to act dr t her ',JD! sion in a judicial capacity. Before proceeding. fLu . ro po s ~. myself bound to say that I am no party to them ot.ionPsowtiol2 the Hon. Member for Bradford. I never saw his this floes.,„het knew nothing of them till I heard them read in tn.on. Ate- for Dublin. h is e u r b s ii).. 1 ami desirouskne%N. not to o f d stricto the p justice roeeed l r, ~,rl,tilii i c e._ du i ... 0, a 5) i do n eepo sot ; contemplation of the Hon. Member for Bradf °l obsecl what took place upon his motion. A proposition wa g to d e ' A" Ci made, which, if agreed to, would have enabled inf o 00 - .60 I considered it my duty to do, as regarded ti' t ac e' for Learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin. 1 .11 ,, a ,, r inOtilee l was to adopt either the original resolution or question,t"-n al the question. And by whom had the previous p 01 moved ? Was it by a Gentleman who could be s i , 4 ° o l) . f t t he different to the character of the Committee??, Ngel, l ,' I3S moved by no less a person than the Alemb l e i r i d e d Pi t tee' Chairman of that Committee, and was se e h ° o colu el ob t ' Noble Friend, also a distinguished membe rods, t as I th i e c ar The proposition of the Hon. Gentleman lea d, as alob, li seconded by my Noble Friend, and thus w° lof nIY t ha t ' 0 ceived, the testimony of the Chairman an` littee--!, Deco Friend—two 'eminent members of the (% 0 Bar e hart wit, their opinion, at least, that course would net, ° c - 005 ist! , b 1 sc lie reconcileable with the principles of justice awl ni itY w l ` de t).. j the feelings of the House, but in perfect c onfor. ou blic oe pte 1 they considered as a due performance of the,l r ec :;nite r a fro ti Why the motion for the previous question bastu,nis a ri . , e e V: I am at a loss to cmajecture ; but I supposee, `_,,„nsibte! iil some deliberate suggestion of the Noble L rU o /rd t q e d tha t advising the present course to be taken, Pr e ' n e t i o e. I t ild " 10 ,„, Gentleman from fulfilling his original in t : L o rd el° t if s e 't motion been made and seconded, the Nobl o , ,i n n ; D:' ia er r have been able to bring forward his res _lu il ' ire ) wa- to ot t o Noble Friend (the Member for South Lanet s oug ht b e ews 1:, in the line of conduct which he pursuer° an err a 0 5 ° , have been told that he was acting ti de ~o nr igil. l , l - nral e ca , pression, arid allowed, if be thought proper!, iiiee, %v it a % _ t o 0 lifted( Cheers. ) Sir, I must say bataidevotiai co i i: ta De D e er H disapprobation the disclosure of eo u lad if ''' Afeln,ess allowed to give the go-by to the tions, and therefore I should have beeu g d Lorn e bo il ii , other e irau: (s s 1-I°n. e n " the for Bradford's motion by passion- 01 ' before us, and thereby ~,. the , ;"" pile ~v l 2O stances, the only proper way 'of That w ow" ba t ''' hy under ' .ll „iitboctioo been proposing the previousjrnPqiYuiens'tio7nh.at' the No use' ail , ' die satisfactory to the Committee and to , a ha s sp in i „ t o has the Noble Lord done ? Why e ",, ra il c to g° os i t io, l o 3 o o the course which he has taken, fore . f iffere nt Prl sc iog l i lif consideration of another and a very u _,, , a• nce in aeclultribueB die ( Cheers.) Sir, there is a great u taerF of t h t Re- do adjudication and adopting the verdict , . wu a to yo . , u s ie whom that adjudication has been d icta te , 1 v o. o o Noble Lord, do ? Why, he says, , ~,,n curb uto L c o ` j e cisi v a precise, the express' terms of the deei.n - i „ to t° re lP ~5 1 nto u l '. ow nts I°' tiro to come. I require you not onlyth e , e nti f t h a t to 1 t of the Committee, but to a dopt, no :nation o . ii ,,, ~0 , 0 in ,, a l u ,, c v Al the precise words in which the deterrninerfoetl)., wil e t f, ‘ , ti, o.b c P • . in a 0' t rie. h i is conveyed."—( Hear, bear.) I lithe deer' J u ' d has a Ile 1 3 Mr. O'Connell the full benefit o. that Ile ith him er e. „ 1 tit 4., mittee, and I entirely agree w not only to refer to but to s tand,.t . tp_ _ oec h, ref; be tie r deny t " 4t more than once, in the course of Ins 'l' h t mean t ° on the report," and I do no on that r , at, 5 ::